Funny Screenshots: Part Deux

[AdamCrock]

Sure ,,,,man axeman , axeman is all in modern age
yup stil is a 1 turn home sh****s ! Behave !!!! Abd thing to give them what they want. Value Your options, if he is not valueing Your option than it means You SHOULD SO MUCH GO for it ^^ hehe anyway best wishes and very best wishes for x-mas

 

[capnvonbaron]

Who is your Sugar Daddy now?!

Randomly noticed one my cities had 7 Sugar sources around it. Talk about energetic people...

but oh! the tooth decay! The diabeetus!!

 

[W|M]

Sugar doesn't actually cause diabetes.

 

[Abegweit]

Nonsense.

Sugar is the ONLY cause.

 

[W|M]

Apart from genetics, age, fat intake, etc.?

 

[strijder20]

Sugar doesn't actually cause diabetes.

Uh, if you take enough of it, yes it does.
EDIT: And yes, not the only cause.

 

[CocoIsKing28]

Apart from genetics, age, fat intake, etc.?

Many people don't realize fats and sugars are two different things.

 

[jarhead_leif]

fats=hypertension sugar=diabetes.

 

[traius]

The person who said sugar does not cause diabetes is correct. People with diabetes cannot handle sugar, and sugar will cause all of their symptoms, but not cause the disease. Genetics and being over-weight are the main sources of the disease.
Type 1 Diabetes means that your pancreas is incapable of properly regulating sugar levels in the blood, due to its inability to properly create insulin. Before insulin replacement therapy was invented, these people died in droves
Type 2 Diabetes means the person is not only (almost always) overweight, but also have a genetic predisposition to insulin resistance. Over time, this resistance will grow, and this resistance can be accelerated by a high-sugar diet (both directly, and indirectly, the latter referring to the fact that sugar can help you become overweight). BUT, and this is the crux of the argument, BEING FAT CAUSES EXTRA HORMONE PRODUCTION WHICH INCREASES YOUR RESITANCE WITH TIME, and the body can convert non-sugars into sugars, meaning a person with the genetic predisposition AND extra weight on their body can become diabetic, sugar or no.

Anyone with a completely healthy pancreas and no genetic predisposition can pretty much eat as much sugar as they want, with no fear of diabetes, even if they get fat. If you are a man and your fat goes all to your belly, this is a warning sign of a potential predisposition towards diabetes (men who have their fat spread out more evenly are far less likely to get diabetes than their counter-parts who have the fat concentrate on their bellies). So, sugar can exacerbate and can even accelerate diabetes, but CANNOT cause it.

EDIT: In case acceleration and exacerbation sound a lot like causation, compare and contrast with tobacco smoking. Someone with genetic predisposition to Lung Cancer will probably get lung cancer whether they smoke or not. Smoking will accelerate their condition. But even among people with no disposition towards lung cancer whatsoever, and even among people with a disposition toward resilient, healthy lungs, smoking can STILL cause lung cancer, and as such smoking is a true CAUSE of the disease. Sugar will not generate diabetes in completely healthy people (where "healthy" here refers to no disposition towards diabetes), so it is not a CAUSE of disease, unlike smoking.

 

[CivLuvah]

My goodness! Off-topic!
Can we go back to the screenshots please?

 

[AdamCrock]

humans need sugar sometimes.

 

[ruff_hi]

You should cottage sugar grassland tiles. If they had been floodplains, you would have cottaged them. Sugar = healthy floodplain.

Sure, sure - plantation one for the resource benefit. Cottage the rest.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

You should cottage sugar grassland tiles. If they had been floodplains, you would have cottaged them. Sugar = healthy floodplain.

Sure, sure - plantation one for the resource benefit. Cottage the rest.

What about trading surplus resources?

 

[traius]

What about trading surplus resources?

As long as you are actually using the traded resource (ie it's not "yet another unnecessary health for my already healthy cities" or "only my capital is populated enough to make use of health resources") then trading is superior. In general though, sugar (and any other happiness resource) is not something you want to give away, unless it's with a definite-ally and it is for a happiness resource in return. If trading any other resource (except the military ones) is possible, than you should trade those instead and cottage the sugar. Or, post-biology, farm it. I personally don't mind the 5 food tiles I can get post-Biology from sugar, and I usually convert my sugar plantations to farms at that point because there are not enough turn left to warrant a cottage.

 

[strijder20]

... Or you can sell off the sugar for GPT and get more gold than you could possibly get in time from a cottage.

 

[damerell]

... Or you can sell off the sugar for GPT and get more gold than you could possibly get in time from a cottage.

What traius points out is that that's not a no-brainer because by doing so you give assistance to one of your rivals.

 

[j_mie6]

also, the commerce could become beakers or culture, gpt can't give you that directly

 

[traius]

... Or you can sell off the sugar for GPT and get more gold than you could possibly get in time from a cottage.

I don't deny the truth of this. But fish will get you just as much gold and will be less useful to the AI (health is less useful than happiness). And unless you exploit the AI, you essentially can only sell them 1 resource at a time (I don't consider renegotiating the deal every time they suddenly have another GPT as exploiting, but I do consider subsidizing-then-canceling-subsidy as an exploit, which in turn means that you can only sell each AI one thing-- so sell them useless health, not happiness. Preferably one of the supermarket health ones, namely Sheep/Pig/Cow/Deer where you know they are only going to be able to get 1 health for sure).

 

[UnforcedError]

I don't deny the truth of this. But fish will get you just as much gold and will be less useful to the AI (health is less useful than happiness). And unless you exploit the AI, you essentially can only sell them 1 resource at a time (I don't consider renegotiating the deal every time they suddenly have another GPT as exploiting, but I do consider subsidizing-then-canceling-subsidy as an exploit, which in turn means that you can only sell each AI one thing-- so sell them useless health, not happiness. Preferably one of the supermarket health ones, namely Sheep/Pig/Cow/Deer where you know they are only going to be able to get 1 health for sure).

In HR times selling happy resources instead of fish will help the AI much less, as it will be able to afford huge stacks in its cities, at least on the higher levels. But it's generally a good idea to sell off excess resources for gold, as your own limiting factor is always research, whatever you do. This is one of the ways the AI can help you along passively with teching.

 

[Koszmar]

Brennus cutting off the nose to spite the face, I see.

Spoiler :

Don't you draw some sort of economic benefit from your vassals? If so, don't you think you'd WANT them to trade with the people you trade with?

Where do you get that extra info from in your screenshot?

1. At the top to the right of research communism their is a yellow bar.
2. Bottom right where the players names are there is red/green numbers and other info that I do not have.
3. There are two white arrows next to the green button under the score which I do not have either.

And why are there two + and two - next to the tax icons in the top left?

Thanks.